Re: tooltime9901 bites the dust again.. (or why you don’t know what you’re talking about) PART1
Written by admin on January 30, 2009 – 3:58 am -Tags: Agnostic, Agnosticism, arguments, atheism, atheist, atheists, Bible, Christian, christianity, enough, for, homeless, hypocritic, idiotic, infinite, infinity, is, jeebuz, jesus, kalam, Life, meaning, morals, more, named, of, One, regress, religion, than, that, tooltime9901, you
Posted in Atheism in Politics | 21 Comments »
By Malecaust666 on Jan 30, 2009 | Reply
Good video.
BTW …
Good video.
BTW you look like Neko off GTA 4
By danheg on Jan 30, 2009 | Reply
the finite mind of …
the finite mind of humans can not even fully comprehend what other humans think or do without bringing in the concept of understanding an infinite mind. But you can get some general ideas about God by observation.
Consider first that man has the ability to distinguish right from wrong. An infinite mind would know what this would entail and indicates that this distinction in some form or other has meaning to that being.
Not all who say they are christian are christian. How did you become one?
By AshesWasHerName on Jan 30, 2009 | Reply
well, but isn’t …
well, but isn’t your creator impossible to understand? what possible could you get that isn’t in the bible? your knowledge is stagnated and it pales in comparison to science.
I didn’t choose to believe that claim, I chose not to believe yours. I was a christian before I moved towards atheism.
By danheg on Jan 30, 2009 | Reply
“the knowledge we …
“the knowledge we get from it might help us understand a lot of things better.”
That would be the same reason for which I study about God. To understand what my Creator wants.
“it is also claimed that god will not impact this universe. ever.”
And you have chosen to believe that claim; however, you had to give it some thought. Correct?
By danheg on Jan 30, 2009 | Reply
Why would time have …
Why would time have no power over God? Gravity and black holes (two kinds of impersonal, non conscious forces) have the ability to affect time which suggests that time is not as pervasive a force as you might think. Another to note is that we human beings are confined by time and have no way to really fully comprehend a matter of “being” outside of it.
As to objections of studying the origins of the universe, I do not think being curious is the main reason.
By luerwulf on Jan 30, 2009 | Reply
“As to speculation, …
“As to speculation, first, why study the origins of life to begin with? Second, it is claimed that God will impact this universe again.” -
It’s also claimed that garlic cures malaria and that ‘NEW, IMPROVED Tide’ works better than that old stuff they used to market to people the same way. So what if it’s ‘claimed’? BFD! Show ME.
And what makes believers think Biblical quotes matter in the slightest?
By luerwulf on Jan 30, 2009 | Reply
Any number of …
Any number of constructs can be proffered about the ‘beginning’ of anything (e.g. the ‘universe’) and we’re still left with “We don’t yet know with any degree of certainty what those ‘beginnings’ were and we may not know soon (if ever).”
The most blatantly dishonest position anyone could possibly take is that anyone can ‘know’ at this point and that includes the childish “therefore it MUST have been god” crap.
Dishonesty is a poor starting point.
By AshesWasHerName on Jan 30, 2009 | Reply
the knowledge we …
the knowledge we get from it might help us understand a lot of things better.
it is also claimed that god will not impact this universe. ever.
By AshesWasHerName on Jan 30, 2009 | Reply
well, how would you …
well, how would you know he created time? time having no power over a god… doesn’t make sense to me. he still needs to exist somehow. what created that “somehow”? the “spiritual” universe, for example.
I would accept it as evidence or proof if there was a reason to. but most of it is just hearsay and could easily be tampered with (or created completely).
why not study the origins of the universe? we are curious, we want to know.
By danheg on Jan 30, 2009 | Reply
Because when one …
Because when one thinks of beginnings and endings in this case, we are thinking in terms of time. If a being creates time, would that not suggest that time would hold no power over such a being and that being would have to be considered eternal?
I would say that there is plenty of evidence; but, would it be evidence that you want to believe?
As to speculation, first, why study the origins of life to begin with? Second, it is claimed that God will impact this universe again.
By Visigothicreign on Jan 30, 2009 | Reply
I commend you on …
I commend you on making a video, but this guy isn’t into “logical” thinking. I’m not even asking him to reconsider his faith or anything, but to learn how to talk and take in true intellect. In both of his replies to tooltime, he completely failed to bring up any type of argument with any facts supporting his obscure ideas. Then if you leave him a comment questioning him, he’ll block you and delete what you said just like VFX. Arguing with him is pointless. He’s right in his mind.
By AshesWasHerName on Jan 30, 2009 | Reply
but how can it be …
but how can it be eternal? why is it that before there was anything, there was only god? do you have any evidence that this “Spirit” world exists?
maybe there really exists a spiritual universe. but we only know about this one, so what’s the point in speculating and diving right into it?
By danheg on Jan 30, 2009 | Reply
not necessarily, …
not necessarily, that “substance” could be eternal. matter and energy are subject to the guidelines of this universe (I am going to pull a “pirates of the Caribbean” and call them merely guidelines) and not necessarily to shall we call it “Spirit”?
By AshesWasHerName on Jan 30, 2009 | Reply
and whatever god is …
and whatever god is composed of, won’t it need a beginning too?
By danheg on Jan 30, 2009 | Reply
but when you are …
but when you are using the word “thing”, you are inferring “thing” as composed of matter or energy when God can be composed otherwise.
By AshesWasHerName on Jan 30, 2009 | Reply
sure, but not only …
sure, but not only does the creator need to exist as “something” (if he doesn’t exist as something, he doesn’t exist), the argument doesn’t even show that whatever made the universe begin to exist was supernatural or intelligent.
By danheg on Jan 30, 2009 | Reply
I would have to …
I would have to disagree. Especially since the Creator would not necessarily exist as a “thing”.
By AshesWasHerName on Jan 30, 2009 | Reply
are you sure? can’t …
are you sure? can’t my sexyness convince you? :p
By sogren5 on Jan 30, 2009 | Reply
Very succinct. But …
Very succinct. But I don’t believe you
By AshesWasHerName on Jan 30, 2009 | Reply
thank you!
thank you!
By BayAreaLen on Jan 30, 2009 | Reply
Good rebuttal. I …
Good rebuttal. I like your logic.